Case law

Rusnak v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2026

Because the Acting Comptroller General is immune from suit as to both counts, the court will assume that both Counts I and II are directed at her. 18 of sovereign immunity … APA review “Absent a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Federal Government is immune from suit.” Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 554 (1988).

Public Citizen v. Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution

622 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 1985

) established or utilized by the President, or (C) established or utilized by one or more agencies, in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President or one or more agencies or officers of the Federal … The lengthy list of proposed activities thus clearly refers to recommendations to other entities. For the same reasons that the Commission was not “established” as an advisory committee, it is not “utilized” as one.

Hopkins v. James

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2009

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in a job referral case, plaintiff must show that 1) he belongs to a protected class; 2) he was qualified  - 8 - for and requested referral … OPM acknowledged that the top scorers and Hopkins were experienced and well qualified.

Scarborough v. Natsios

190 F. Supp. 2d 5 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2002

To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under the Rehabilitation Act, plaintiff must demonstrate that he is (1) a handicapped person within the meaning of the Act, (2) who is qualified to perform the essential … The word ‘substantial’ thus clearly precludes impairments that interfere in only a minor way with the performance of manual tasks from qualifying as disabilities.” Toyota, 122 S.Ct. at 691 (internal citations omitted).

Norwich Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Becerra

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 2025

Cir. 2018) (“It is ‘well established’ that ‘the’ . . . acts as a ‘word of limitation.’” (quoting Am. Bus. Ass’n v. Slater, 231 F.3d 1, 4-5 (D.C. … Circuit, which interpreted the phrase “caused by” in the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act’s (“FSIA”) jurisdictional provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7), as not requiring but-for causation. Kilburn v.

Bynum v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 25, 2026

To establish a valid failure-to-accommodate claim, “a plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that ‘(1) she was a qualified individual with a disability, (2) the [employer] had notice of her disability … Bynum is entitled to summary judgment on her hostile work environment claim was not “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

Wallace v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · May 7, 2026

Wallace’s suit is barred in its entirety by sovereign immunity, (2) that Mr. … Wallace’s claim clearly accrued more than six years before he filed this lawsuit. As Mr.

Di Lella v. University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law

570 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2008

The complaint quite clearly does not comply with Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires a plaintiff's claim to be set forth in a "short and plain statement.” … The Law School makes several arguments in its motion to dismiss pertinent to Di Leila's claims against the individual defendants, principally relating to immunities, to which Di Leila does not respond.

We Charity v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2023

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) provides that “a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States . . . except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter.” 28 … “By definition,” the court explained, “breaching a contract that establishes the United States as a place of performance will have a direct effect here, whereas breaching a contract that establishes a different or unspecific

Chappell-Johnson v. Bair

574 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2008

Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion in Brady , written for a unanimous panel of our Court of Appeals, sets out this Court’s task quite succinctly: Lest there be any lingering uncertainty, we state the rule clearly: In a Title VII disparate-treatment … Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (“The burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous.”).

Roberson v. Snow

404 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 12, 2005

For the first available position, four applicants appeared on the Best Qualified List. (Id. at 69.) … Small, 350 F.3d 1286, 1292 (D.C.Cir.2003). *93 Here, plaintiff clearly has met the first prong of the prima facie analysis.

Nolan v. Woodruff

68 F.R.D. 660 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 1975

In Title II, §§ 203 and 207, the FHA was also empowered to insure qualifying mortgagees of property and low-cost housing projects. … In *663 short, the FHA was, as the Supreme Court termed it, clearly “launched” by Congress “into the commercial world.” 309 U.S. at 245 , 60 S.Ct. at 490 .

Wye Oak Technology, Inc. v. Republic of Iraq

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 2019

These documents were therefore both clearly made by officials serving in the Ministry of Trade, and DX 57 was sent specifically to the Minister of Trade. … Having established that Ms. Muneer is a qualified person and that her certification complied with Rule 902(l2), the Court proceeds to examine whether Ms.

United States v. Straker

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 2, 2009

Here, the statute clearly reflects the responsibility of the Attorney General (and his designees) over the 6 activity at issue -- the granting of petitions for naturalization … The separate question of whether Maharaj was, in fact, qualified for U.S.

United States v. Craig

357 F. Supp. 3d 87 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 2019

The First Circuit's well-established Teeter test for determining the enforceability of an appellate waiver requires a court to ask "(1) whether the waiver's scope was clearly delineated; (2) whether the district court specifically … Chambers , 710 F.3d 23 , 30 (1st Cir. 2013) ("[T]he waiver must be stated clearly and its scope must be definite.").

Ivanhoe Citrus Ass'n v. Handley

612 F. Supp. 1560 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 1985

This list, therefore, qualifies as a “general statement” which does not identify the information furnished by any particular person, and its release is not prohibited by the AMAA. … Clearly the handler plaintiffs have no standing to assert the privacy interests of the growers.

Estate of Wanda Lorraine Kelly Johnson v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 28, 2024

In particular, “[i]n a FSIA default proceeding, a factual finding is not deemed clearly erroneous if there is an adequate basis in the record for inferring that the district court . . . was satisfied with the evidence … a general rule granting foreign sovereigns immunity from the jurisdiction of United States courts,” Mohammadi v.

Chastain v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

401 F. Supp. 151 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 1975

Before discussing plaintiffs’ theories, however, the Court must evaluate defendant’s claim of antitrust immunity. Applicability of Parker v. … The resolution of this issue depends on the facts to be established at trial.

Dehaarte v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 11, 2026

Code § 12-309 as a “mandatory prerequisite to filing tort claims” within its purview). 6 More, the statute “is to be strictly construed because it is a departure from the common law concept of sovereign immunity.” Id. … Qualifying Disability The ADA “prohibits discrimination by an employer ‘against a qualified individual with a disability because of’ that disability.” Flemmings v. Howard Univ., 198 F.3d 857, 860 (D.C.

Lind v. McHugh

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 2014

To be sure, the Correction Board did not clearly state that it was reopening the plaintiff’s case. … The Army regulations require that the plaintiff “‘produc[e] evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly’ that the ‘presumption of regularity’ should not apply, and that ‘[a]ction is warranted to correct a material